RSSCan a king acknowledge the facts?
At last! I’ve managed my way through the site technology to post! (My incompetence with “logging on” to this site has heretofore hindered my input, but I’ve been enjoying the discussion even if inept at posting!)
I have a rather basic question for which I’d be interested in a “Hartian response”. But first, let me underscore the sincerity of my lone, previous posting where I expressed my gratitude for this book. Even though I am among those differing with you, Darryl, in some admittedly important conclusions, I also am truly rejoicing at the excellent resource you have provided us in this book, critiquing the fundamental errors of the so-called “Religious Right.” We have more points of agreement than disagreement, I believe; and I want to assert my genuine appreciation for this book. Thank you.
One of our points of agreement is your recent affirmations of the WCF’s teaching that “the church is the kingdom”. I agree that it is wrong to suppose that the state is part of Christ’s kingdom. And actually, William Symington affirmed that same “narrow definition of the kingdom” in his Messiah the Prince. But indeed, as Symington so eloquently articulates in that same work, the Scriptures also remind us that “[the Father] put all things under [Jesus'] feet and gave him as head over all things to the church” (Eph 1.22). That is, the church alone is the kingdom Christ is building in the world, yet he nonetheless also exercises dominion over all other institutions (including the state) for the purposes of sovereignly furthering his church (the kingdom).
Now, I think we are agreed on that much. And indeed, I would also concur (as I think would also be your position, Darryl) that the great implication of Jesus’ dominion over all things (including the state) for the purposes of his church, is that the church is free to get on with her calling to kingdom ministry irregardless of what the state is doing. Jesus’ dominion over the state means that the church is free to do her role and know that Jesus governs over the king, even when the king is “causing trouble.” As Symington writes, “The church of Christ is strictly independent…. The church has existed without the countenance and support of the civil power, [and] these are by no means necessary to its being.” To say it yet one more time: the church is Christ’s kingdom, and Christ governs over all things for the sake of the church; therefore, the church is free to get on with her business whether or not the state is cooperative. I think we are agreed on that much.
But I think where we differ is simply on this question: whether the state must always be ignorant of Christ’s purposes for her existence.
If Jesus intends to sovereignly govern over even the state for his church-building purposes (Eph 1.22; cf., Mt 28.18; 1Tim 2.2-3; etc.), what would happen if a king came to recognize this fact? It is, indeed, a fact that Jesus rules over the states of men whether they acknowledge it or not. Human states are not the kingdom of Christ, but they are under his sovereign authority all the same. But, if a human state were to recognize this fact of Jesus’ authority over them, and even to recognize that Jesus’ reason for ruling over that state is for the benefit of his church, are there ways a human government can willingly cooperate with Christ’s purposes for that government? Yes, the state would still have to restrain herself to the strictly distinct and social jurisdictions of the state — she cannot undertake forced conversions or other ecclesiastical meddling. But is it possible for a state, which in fact is under Christ’s sovereignty for the purposes of the church, to recognize and cooperate with that fact within her proper jurisdiction?
It seems to me that the Hartian position always assumes that the state, while under Jesus’ dominion, can never acknowledge it. Much less have we any grounds to call the state to acknowledge the facts. The Covenanter position simply accepts that it is, indeed, possible (and desirable) that kings qua kings would acknowledge their divine Overlord (Ps 2).
I just seems that Darryl’s position necessitates that governments remain ignorant of Jesus’ sovereignty. In most instances, this is the case: human governments often (usually!) do ignore Jesus’ sovereignty. But how would the Hartian view counsel, say, a monarch if that monarch were to recognize the fact that Jesus is sovereign over his government for the purposes of the church?
I’m not trying to be testy, but am wondering whether you allow any opportunity for the state to acknowledge the facts under which she exists.
D Hart
April 18th, 2007 at 10:14 am
I appreciate the comment. But what does the Covenanter position do with non-believers in modern society? I might concede that the Christian tradition’s account of the state and virtue is more robust than modern liberalism (though I’m not sure it is more robust than Aristotle or — to keep Caleb happy — Voegelin). But one of the virtues of liberalism is that it does make room for those pesty non-believers and idolaters. To say that Reformed Christianity is good for these people, whether they like it or not, is to misconstrue the efficacy of Christianity since its benefits are spiritual, not civil. And how often do the public affirmations of God or Christ, in order to prevent them from being offensive to non-Christians, trivialize the Christian religion? Any number of Bush performances have demonstrated as much.
W.H. Chellis
April 18th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
The benefits of the church are spiritual. Christianity includes a doctrine of creation. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the sole benefit of Christianity is spiritual. Further, the spiritual blessing of the church cannot be seperated from our doctrine of creation. We are new creations (spiritually now but physically also at the consummation). Christ Himself is a the first fruits of the New Creation through the resurrection from the dead. He is physically glorified. Should that part of Christ’s experience be subtracted from “christianity”?
D Hart
April 19th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Bill, I did not say that Christianity’s sole benefit is spiritual. But I would assert that its permanent benefit is spiritual. (Having recently attended a conference on Russell Kirk and having heard much talk of the “permanent things,” I couldn’t help but think a little immanentization of the eschaton was going on.)
Christ did many physical things through his miracles. But all of those people healed and even raised from the dead still died. At which point the spiritual benefits of Christian look a whole lot more permanent than the physical.
This doesn’t mean that I deny the resurrection or the goodness of the body. But for the final resurrection to happen, we will need a whole lot more than a reform of the health care system or Christians going into the medical profession.
mlefebvre
April 19th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Darryl, you certainly raise a valid *practical* concern: how does a state that admits the truth of Christ confess that admission without forcing the same on all its subjects? That is, however, simply a question of pragmatics — how to implement the principle — it does not invalidate the principle. Governing is, by nature, a complex affair, and governing a pluralistic people in a manner that honors Christ is one of those complexities. But that it is a challenge to do does not mean it is impossible or undesirable.
It is a fact that Christ reigns sovereign over the state, and that he exercises that authority for the benefit of his kingdom’s advance (the church) in the state’s midst. Why is it not possible, and desirable, for a state to recognize this fact and even seek to cooperate with Christ?
Already, the US government enacts legislation to give tax benefits to religious institutions, thereby necessitating that the government define what is a government-endorsed religious organization. By doing so, they do not prohibit other religious bodies, which do not meet the government-recognized standards, from operating. They simply operate without the government’s tax-breaks.
Perhaps a better teaser: the American government presently seems to regard as its great purpose the promotion of business. The government enacts all kinds of measures to try to establish in America an environment in which businesses can prosper and make money. This requires the government to determine what kinds of business enterprises it will countenance, and what kinds of business enterprises it will not. Certain measures may be enacted to encourage more farmers to grow lima beans in Illinois because of a government recognized need for lima beans in that state, without thereby denying the right of farmers to keep on growing alfalfa if that is their preference. (I don’t know if lima beans or alfafa even grow in Illinois! But you get my point.)
Furthermore, the American governments efforts to nurture market growth are continually exercised within a national ideal that admits the government is not itself a business. Sometimes things get out of hand, admittedly; but in principle, the government is to foster these business endeavors without so meddling as to itself become the CEO of any business.
Naturally, the government encouragement of money-making is a complex affair, and often sinful men in government trespass the lines of government’s legitimate boundaries in business matters. But the fact that it is challenging to work out this relationship does not in itself illegitimate the endeavor.
If we already recognize that the government can rightly exercise its powers to encourage business without thereby ascribing to her the right to become the CEO of any business, why cannot a government that comes to acknowledge an even more profound purpose not be blessed with that joyous privilege of using her Christ-appointed office to provide nurture and encouragement to that grand purpose?
So I guess, with humble (or simple-minded?) tenacity, I simply reassert my original question. I recognize that implementation of Christ-honoring government over a religiously plural society is complicated, but simply noting the difficulty does not itself negate the question.
It is a fact that Christ reigns sovereign over the state, and that he exercises that authority for the benefit of his kingdom’s advance in the state’s midst. Why is it not possible, and desirable, for a state to recognize this fact and even seek to cooperate with what is already Christ’s purpose for her?
D Hart
April 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I don’t think enforcing Covenanter theology on non-Covenanters is merely a practical question. It is one of principle. Was that what God intended for this age of redemptive history? I am not convinced. And I continue to think this idea is more the legacy of Constantine than Christ.
And why is it the case that Christ’s reign over the state is only evident when the state is enforcing Christianity? The point of my post on Saddam Hussein was that Christ was also ruling over Saddam when Saddam held office. The position mlefevbre is espousing suggests that Christ and the apostles didn’t know what they were doing when Paul told Christians to submit to an anti-Christian government.
And one more thing, church history at times suggests that the church prospers when the state is opposed to Christianity, not in support of it. So maybe God knows what he’s doing when he raises up non-Christian governments.